Objective To compare the axial length (AL) measured by Lenstar and contact AScan in the patients with idiopathic macular hole and study the correlation between the difference of the two measurements and the foveal thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods Twenty-seven eyes of 26 idiopathic macular hole patients (IMH group) and 27 eyes of 25 patients with mild cataract (control group) were enrolled in this study. Foveal thickness was measured with 3D OCT. The AL was measured by Lenstar and contact A-Scan, and the consistency of the two measurements was determined by Bland-Altman analysis. The correlation between the difference of the two measurements and foveal thickness was analyzed by Pearson correlation analysis. Results Mean foveal thickness of IMH and control eyes were （372.85±60.02） μm and （243.44±22.50） μm, respectively. The difference between the foveal thickness of the two groups was highly significant (t=-10.490，P＜0.001). In the IMH group, the AL measured by Lenstar and contact A-Scan were (23.20±1.12) mm and (23.18±1.13) mm, respectively, the difference between the two measurements was not statistically significant (t=-0.549，P=0.588), whereas in the control group, the AL was (23.41±0.72) mm by Lenstar and (23.33±0.74) mm by contact A-Scan, the two measurements were significantly different (t=-4.832，P＜0.001). However, no correlation was found by Pearson correlation analysis between the difference of the two measurements and the foveal thickness in either IMH or control group (r=0.181，-0.141;P＞0.05). ConclusionsAlthough there is no difference of axial length measurements using Lenstar and contact A-Scan in IMH eyes, in clinical measurements the results of two instruments should be taken into comprehensive consideration.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical characteristics and analyze the factors affecting vision prognosis of idiopathic macular hole (IMH) or myopic macular hole (MMH). MethodsA cross-sectional study. From October 2012 to October 2020, 336 patients with 346 eyes of IMH and MMH who were diagnosed in Shanxi Provincial Eye Hospital with continuous follow-up data after surgery were included. There were 346 eyes (336 cases), including IMH with 247 cases (255 eyes) and MMH with 89 cases (91 eyes), which were divided into IMH group and MMH group. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography were performed in all eyes. The BCVA examination used the standard logarithmic visual acuity chart, which was converted into logarithmic minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity. The age of outset in IMH and MMH was 64.8±6.6 and 59.2±8.1 years, the logMAR BCVA was 1.11±0.50 and 1.80±0.78, respectively. There were significant differences in age (Wald=34.507) and logMAR BCVA (Z=－7.703) between two groups (P＜0.05). All eyes were performed inner limiting membrane (ILM) peeling or partial inverted ILM covering hole operation. After the operation, the vitreous cavity was filled with air, C3F8 and silicone oil, including 73, 102, 83 eyes in IMH group and 9, 10, 72 eyes in MMH group, respectively. Follow-up time after surgery was more than 2 months. The optimal BCVA and macular hole closure of the two groups were observed. If the quantitative data conformed to the normal distribution, the generalized estimating equation was used, otherwise, the Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-wallis test was used, the χ2 test was used for the comparison of categorical variables. Generalized estimating equation logistic regression analyzed the influencing factors of optimal BCVA after surgery and visual acuity success. ResultsIn IMH and MMH, the optimal logMAR BCVA were 0.71±0.36, 1.10±0.51 respectively, and 147 (57.6%, 147/255) eyes, 63 (69.2%, 63/91) eyes achieved visual success respectively. There was a significant difference in the optimal logMAR BCVA (Z=－6.803, P＜0.005), but no difference in visual success rate (χ2=3.772) between the two groups. The visual success rate of IMH at the same baseline BCVA level was higher than that of MMH, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=14.500, P=0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the influencing factors predicting poor optimal visual acuity after surgery were: IMH, baseline BCVA [odds ratio (OR)=2.941, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.341-6.447, P＜0.05], MH diameter (OR=1.003, 95%CI 1.001-1.005, P＜0.05), silicon oil filling (OR=3.481, 95%CI 1.594-7.605, P＜0.05); MMH, baseline BCVA (OR=2.549, 95%CI 1.344-4.834, P＜0.05), C3F8 filling (OR=18.131, 95%CI 1.505-218.365, P＜0.05) and silicon oil filling (OR=7.796, 95%CI 0.997-60.944, P＜0.05). The factors leading to a lower likelihood of achieving visual success: IMH, baseline BCVA (OR=213.329, 95%CI 46.123-986.694, P＜0.05), MH diameter (OR=0.995, 95%CI 0.992-0.997, P＜0.05), silicon oil filling (OR=0.326, 95%CI 0.115-0.926, P＜0.05) and duration (OR=1.036, 95%CI 1.005-1.067, P＜0.05); MMH, baseline BCVA (OR=13.316, 95%CI 2.513-70.565, P＜0.05) and duration (OR=1.022, 95%CI 1.001-1.044, P＜0.05). ConclusionsMMH was earlier than IMH in age of outset. Baseline vision significantly affected vision prognosis in IMH and MMH. Silicone oil should be avoided as much as possible under the premise of hole closure.